TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. We also observe that when the late-fee is not leviable in the law and on facts, by levying the same the assessees have been fastened with the liability beyond and against the scheme of the Act, which should not happen. In this regard, we gainfully refer a recent decision in the case of Akbar Mohammad, Nagaur [ 2022 (2) TMI 479 - ITAT JODHPUR] Thus having observed that there was an apparent mistake in the intimations sent by Ld. AO u/s 154, we are inclined to accept that the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeals of assessees. Therefore, Ground No. 1 is allowed. Validity of charging late-fee u/s 234E in the intimations issued u/s 200A for delay in filing quarterly-returns of TDS relatable to the period prior to 01.06.2015 - HELD THAT:- As section 200A(1) was amended w.e.f. 01.06.2015 by inserting clause (c) therein and it is only thereafter the authorities were enabled to charge latefee in the intimations u/s 200A. Therefore, it is very much clear that the authorities did not have any power to charge late-fee in respect of returns related to the period prior to 01.06.2015. See M/s. Keshav Industries Pvt. Ltd. [ 2020 (7) TMI 812 - ITAT INDORE] Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Q4 26Q 3320 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10079/202021 9-Jul-22 5 ITA 226/Ind/2022 BHABHRA BRANCH BPLJ01634D 2014-15 Q2 26Q 3000 CIT (A), Gwalior/10343/2020-21 9-Jul-22 6 ITA 227/Ind/2022 BHABHRA BRANCH BPLJ01634D 2014-15 Q3 26Q 1640 CIT (A), Jabalpur- 1/10249/202021 9-Jul-22 7 ITA 228/Ind/2022 CHANDPUR BRANCH BPLJ01646B 2014-15 Q2 26Q 14498 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10095/202021 9-Jul-22 8 ITA 229/Ind/2022 RAJGARH NAKA JHABUA BRANCH BPLJ01645A 2014-15 Q4 26Q 3600 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10088/202021 9-Jul-22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITA 239/Ind/2022 PADIYAL BRANCH BPLJ01621E 2013-14 Q2 26Q 1090 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10065/202021 9-Jul-22 19 ITA 240/Ind/2022 PIPLIYA BRANCH BPLJ01609G 2012-13 Q3 26Q 6897 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10096/202021 9-Jul-22 20 ITA 241/Ind/2022 DHOLANA BRANCH BPLJ01600E 2012-13 Q2 26Q 7200 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10108/202021 9-Jul-22 21 ITA 242/Ind/2022 BAKANER BRANCH BPLJ01636F 2013-14 Q2 26Q 6000 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10111/202021 9-Jul-22 22 ITA 243/Ind/2022 BAKANER BRANCH BPLJ01636F 2014-15 Q4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26Q 3000 CIT (A), Jabalpur- 1/10248/202021 9-Jul-22 32 ITA 253/Ind/2022 RANAPU BRANCH BPLJ01625B 2014-15 Q2 26Q 3000 CIT (A), Ujjain/10044/2020-21 9-Jul-22 33 ITA 254/Ind/2022 RANAPUR BRANCH BPLJ01625B 2014-15 Q4 26Q 3600 CIT (A), Ujjain/10038/2020-21 9-Jul-22 34 ITA 255/Ind/2022 KAKANWANI BRANCH BPLJ01602G 2012-13 Q4 26Q 12600 CIT (A), Jabalpur- 1/10253/202021 9-Jul-22 35 ITA 256/Ind/2022 BHABHRA BRANCH BPLJ01634D 2012-13 Q4 26Q 34418 CIT (A), Ujjain/10049/2020-21 9-Jul-22 36 I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d/2022 TIRLA BRANCH BPLN03116B 2013-14 Q1 26Q 2531 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10066/202021 9-Jul-22 46 ITA 267/Ind/2022 PADALYAMATA BRANCH BPLN02178B 2012-13 Q3 26Q 2280 CIT (A), Ujjain/10034/2020-21 9-Jul-22 47 ITA 268/Ind/2022 RAJGARH BRANCH BPLJ01649E 2014-15 Q4 26Q 34600 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10086/202021 9-Jul-22 48 ITA 269/Ind/2022 MEGHNAGAR BRANCH BPLJ01667B 2012-13 Q4 26Q 10200 CIT (A), Ujjain/10035/2020-21 9-Jul-22 49 ITA 270/Ind/2022 SARANGI BRANCH BPLJ02612B 2012-13 Q4 26Q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT (A), Indore- 2/10103/202021 1-Aug-22 59 ITA 280/Ind/2022 PADIYAL BRANCH BPLJ01621E 2012-13 Q3 26Q 2100 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10125/202021 2-Aug-22 60 ITA 281/Ind/2022 PADIYAL BRANCH BPLJ01621E 2012-13 Q4 26Q 10200 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10139/202021 2-Aug-22 61 ITA 282/Ind/2022 PIPLIYA BRANCH BPLJ01609G 2012-13 Q2 26Q 7800 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10123/202021 2-Aug-22 62 ITA 283/Ind/2022 AMBADA BRANCH BPLJ01599D 2012-13 Q4 26Q 21000 NFAC/2012-13/10011359 2-Aug-22 63 ITA 284/Ind/2022 BAKANER BRANCH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BRANCH BPLJ01610A 2012-13 Q2 26Q 7800 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10117/202021 2-Aug-22 73 ITA 294/Ind/2022 PITHAMPUR BRANCH BPLJ01610A 2012-13 Q3 26Q 4299 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10121/202021 2-Aug-22 74 ITA 295/Ind/2022 PITHAMPUR BRANCH BPLJ01610A 2013-14 Q2 26Q 2420 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10140/202021 2-Aug-22 75 ITA 296/Ind/2022 JHABUA BRANCH BPLJ01572E 2012-13 Q2 26Q 68800 CIT (A), Ujjain/10047/2020-21 1-Aug-22 76 ITA 297/Ind/2022 JIBAT BRANCH BPLJ01644G 2012-13 Q2 26Q 7200 NFAC/2012-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 86 ITA 307/Ind/2022 PETLAWAD BRANCH BPLJ01639B 2012-13 Q3 26Q 1664 CIT (A), Ujjain/10041/2020-21 2-Aug-22 87 ITA 308/Ind/2022 PETLAWAD BRANCH BPLJ01639B 2014-15 Q3 26Q 3200 NFAC/2014-15/10011383 2-Aug-22 88 ITA 309/Ind/2022 JHABUA BRANCH BPLJ01645A 2012-13 Q2 26Q 87400 CIT (A), Ujjain/10057/2020-21 2-Aug-22 89 ITA 310/Ind/2022 ALIRAJPUR BRANCH BPLJ01653B 2012-13 Q4 26Q 6600 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10094/202021 1-Aug-22 90 ITA 311/Ind/2022 DHAR BRANCH BPLN03152C 2013-14 Q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7800 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10132/202021 1-Aug-22 100 ITA 321/Ind/2022 RAJGARH BRANCH BPLJ01649E 2012-13 Q4 26Q 10200 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10131/202021 1-Aug-22 101 ITA 322/Ind/2022 RAJGARH BRANCH BPLJ01649E 2013-14 Q3 26Q 6600 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10137/202021 1-Aug-22 102 ITA 323/Ind/2022 RAJGARH BRANCH BPLJ01649E 2013-14 Q4 26Q 6800 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10136/202021 1-Aug-22 103 ITA 324/Ind/2022 RAJGARH BRANCH BPLJ01649E 2014-15 Q2 26Q 77000 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10112/202021 1-Aug-22 104 ITA 325/I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PLEADS THAT NONCONSIDERATION OF A DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL COURT (IN THIS CASE HON'BLE INDORE ITAT) COULD BE SAID TO BE A Mistake APPARENT FROM THE RECORD : The Appellant Bank pleads that the Id. CIT(A) has erred by wrong appreciating the facts and not considered that Late Filing Levy is Mistake apparent from Record . The appellant Bank pleads that our appeal is always in respect of Late filing Levy of TDS under sec 234E which is getting shown in Intimation Order under sec 154 generated after filing TDS Corrections. We therefore Request Hon'ble ITAT to consider Late Filing Levy as Mistake apparent from Record and consider the appeal filed against intimation order generated under sec 154 after filing TDS Corrections as valid and set aside the Order of Ld. CIT(A) and set aside the demand of Late filing fees under sec 234Efor TDS statement filed before 01.06.2015. GROUND NO 2: Insertion of clause (c) to section 200a(1) of the it act. Specifically w.e.f.1.06.2015 The Id. CIT(A) has erred and not considered that TDS-CPC has been empowered to make claim and generate intimation u/s 200A for late fees (u/s 234E) for all the statements filed on or after 01 Jun- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejection of rectification-applications by Ld. AO was in order. 6. Facts qua this Ground are such that while passing intimations u/s 200A of the Act, the Ld. AO levied late fee u/s 234E. Although the assessee did not file direct appeals against the intimations u/s 200A, applications seeking rectification u/s 154 of the Act were filed to Ld. AO for redressal of grievance arising due to illegal levy of late-fee. However, the Ld. AO rejected those applications filed by assessees. Being aggrieved by rejection, the assessees filed appeals to Ld. CIT(A) and technically such appeal happened to be against the order of rectification u/s 154 and not against the original intimations u/s 200A of the act. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of assessees by concluding thus in Para No. 6.7 of his order: 6.7 Based on the detailed discussion above, I am of the view that the levy of late filing fee u/s 234E is NOT a mistake apparent from record. Therefore the rectification order u/s 154 rightly rejected the appellant s contention of deletion of Levy of penalty u/s 234E, since a rectification order u/s 154 is limited to deal with issues which are mistake apparent from record. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT(A). 9. We have considered the rival submissions of both sides and also perused the record. We would observe, in subsequent discussions, that the late fee u/s 234E could not have been levied in the intimations u/s 200A for delay in filing quarterly returns of TDS for the period prior to 01.06.2015. Therefore, by levying late-fee which was not leviable, the Ld. AO has certainly committed a mistake apparent on record. Additionally, we also observe that under the scheme of Income-tax Act, 1961, the assesseee have two remedies against the intimation u/s 200A, viz. (i) file rectification-application u/s 154, or (ii) file appeal u/s 246A. We observe that the remedy to file rectification u/s 154 is not only one of the available remedies but also a simpler remedy and practically resorted to by many of the assessees, particularly in the matter of the late-fee u/s 234E wrongly levied by revenue-authorities. We find that it is not a case of revenue that the rectification-application u/s 154 against the intimation u/s 200A is absolutely barred in the scheme of the Act. We also observe that when the late-fee is not leviable in the law and on facts, by levying the same the assessees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, it is very much clear that the authorities did not have any power to charge late-fee in respect of returns related to the period prior to 01.06.2015. In support of this proposition, Ld. AR relied upon certain decisions of different Courts / Benches of ITAT including the decisions of ITAT, Indore Bench itself in ITA Nos. 510/Ind/2019 in case of M/s. Keshav Industries Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 500 to 508/Ind/2019 Mr. Rajendra Prasad Tiwari, order dated 14.07.2020. The relevant paras of decision are reproduced below: 10. We also observe that the Co-ordinate Bench Agra in the case of Sudershan Goyal Vs DCIT (TDS) ITA No.442/Agra/2017 order dated 09.04.2018 considering the similar issue deciding in favour of the assessee observed as follows:- The issue involved in this appeal is as to whether late filing fee u/s 234E of the IT Act has rightly been charged in the intimation dated 10.11.2013 issued u/s 200A of the Act while processing the TDS returns/statement, the enabling clause (c) having been inserted in the section w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Before 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision in the Act u/s 200A for raising demand in respect of levy of fee u/s 234E. As such, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 200A for computation and intimation for the payment of fee under Section 234E could not be made in purported exercise of power under Section 200A by the respondent for the period of the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. However, we make it clear that, if any deductor has already paid the fee after intimation received under Section 200A, the aforesaid view will not permit the deductor to reopen the said question unless he has made payment under protest. 6. In view of the above, respectfully following 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others' (supra), 'Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (TDS)', order dated 09.06.2015 passed in ITA No.90/ASR/2015, for A.Y.2013-14, by the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal, and 'Shri Kaur Chand Jain vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS) Ghaziabad', order dated 15.09.2016, in ITA No.378/ASR/2015, for A.Y. 2012-13, I.T.A No. 442/Agra/2017 S.A. No. 01/Agra/2018 the grievance of the assessee is accepted as justified. The order under appeal is reversed. The levy of the fee is cancelled. 11. We, therefore respectfully following above decisions are of the opinion that in the given set of facts of the instant appeals wherein fee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
